Just as the good Justice Alito predicted.
U.S. District Judge Joseph Laplante granted class-action status to babies who would be affected by the order, in an apparent attempt to circumvent the high court's directives to limit injunctions to participating parties in the case.
The ACLU filed suit, arguing that those affected would suffer irreparable harm, NBC News reported.
The Supreme Court last month narrowed the scope of prior injunctions against the order, finding that lower courts likely lacked the authority to issue sweeping injunctions.
"The issuance of a universal injunction can be justified only as an exercise of equitable authority, yet Congress has granted federal courts no such power," wrote Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett.
In a concurring opinion, however, Associate Justice Samuel Alito wrote that "today's decision will have very little value if district courts award relief to broadly defined classes without following 'Rule 23's procedural protections' for class certification."
Note that Rule 23 imposes certain requirements which this judge is almost certainly blowing off because he's really just issuing a nationwide injunction under a different name.
(B) For (b)(3) Classes. For any class certified under Rule 23(b)(3) --or upon ordering notice under Rule 23(e)(1) to a class proposed to be certified for purposes of settlement under Rule 23(b)(3)--the court must direct to class members the best notice that is practicable under the circumstances, including individual notice to all members who can be identified through reasonable effort. The notice may be by one or more of the following: United States mail, electronic means, or other appropriate means.The notice must clearly and concisely state in plain, easily understood language:
(i) the nature of the action;
(ii) the definition of the class certified;
(iii) the class claims, issues, or defenses;
(iv) that a class member may enter an appearance through an attorney if the member so desires;
(v) that the court will exclude from the class any member who requests exclusion;
(vi) the time and manner for requesting exclusion; and
(vii) the binding effect of a class judgment on members under Rule 23(c)(3) .
Obviously he's not even going to attempt notifying babies that they are now part of a class action lawsuit.
And note that just because you certify a class for a class action, that isn't -- or shouldn't be -- grounds for issuing yet another single-unelected-judge diktat that overrides the American voters' strong message at the ballot box.
But no big deal because this is just a pretext for the Judicial Insurrection's continuing Will to Power.